[unord.hash] [format.formatter.spec] Rephrase "specialization of X<Y>" #6257
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Both instances here have the same form: The first paragraph is phrased correctly as "for any type Y for which the library provides a specialization of X," and talks about disabling; the second paragraph talks about enabling in terms of "a specialization of X<Y>," which is incorrect. Flip it around so we talk enabling first, and use parallel construction in the two paragraphs.
Quuxplusone
added a commit
to Quuxplusone/draft
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2023
This and cplusplus#6257 are the only instance of this solecism.
Yeah. "Specialization" doesn't mean explicit specialization or partial specialization. It's defined at https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.spec.general#def:specialization. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Both instances here have the same form: The first paragraph is phrased correctly as "for any type Y for which the library provides a specialization of X," and talks about disabling; the second paragraph talks about enabling in terms of "a specialization of X," which is incorrect. Flip it around so we talk enabling first, and use parallel construction in the two paragraphs.
Question: Can we replace the words "explicit or partial specialization" with the one word "specialization"? Would that be wrong or confusing somehow?